LA District Attorney’s Husband Points a Gun at Black Lives Matter Protestors on His Porch

David Lacey LA County District Attorney

YouTube Screen capture by Boch.

One might think that a prosecuting attorney’s husband would know the laws pertaining to armed self-defense, but apparently not southern California. There, when Black Lives Matter protesters showed up on Los Angeles County district attorney Jackie Lacey’s home early Monday morning, her husband David pointed a gun at them and ordered them to leave.

Police didn’t charge David Lacey for threatening the lives of the demonstrators, who said the gun pointed at them – with Mr. Lacey’s finger on the trigger – left them traumatized.

Black Lives Matter organizer Melina Abdullah, center, addresses media in downtown Los Angeles on Monday, March 2, 2020, after a demonstration at DA Jackie Lacey’s home. Black Lives Matter protesters say the husband of the Los Angeles County district attorney pointed a gun at them Monday morning as they demanded a meeting with her at her home the day before a primary election for her seat. Lacey said she’s sorry her husband pointed gun at Black Lives Matter protesters at couple’s home. (AP Photo/Stefanie Dazio)

Later in the day yesterday – the day before a contested Democrat primary race for the Los Angeles County District Attorney – incumbent Lacey broke out the tears and apologized in a press conference, saying she and her husband felt “frightened” by the people outside her home.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey talks during a news conference in Los Aneles on Monday, March 2, 2020. Black Lives Matter protesters say the husband of the Los Angeles County district attorney pointed a gun at them Monday morning as they demanded a meeting with her at her home the day before a primary election for her seat. Lacey said she’s sorry her husband pointed gun at Black Lives Matter protesters at couple’s home. (AP Photo/Stefanie Dazio)

Undoubtedly, if any of the little people in L.A. County had opened their door and waved a gun around at people, police would have arrested them and D.A. Lacey would have almost certainly prosecuted them up to and including prison time.

Here’s the AP report:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The husband of the first black woman to lead the country’s largest local prosecutor’s office pointed a gun and said “I will shoot you” to Black Lives Matter members demonstrating outside the couple’s home before dawn Monday, prompting an apology from his wife on the eve of her primary election.

In an emotional press conference, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said she and her husband, David, were awakened and frightened by the demonstration that occurred before 6 a.m.. She said he ran downstairs, where she heard him talking to someone, and that when he returned he said there were protesters.

She said he told her: “I pulled my gun, and I asked them to leave.”

The encounter came ahead of a Tuesday primary election in which Lacey is seeking a third term. She has clashed repeatedly with Black Lives Matter protesters, who say she is too protective of law enforcement and doesn’t prosecute officers in fatal shootings.

Black Lives Matter organizers spurned Lacey’s apology during a separate news conference. They said they were “traumatized.”

“She didn’t apologize to us,” Melina Abdullah said. “And an apology isn’t enough. We need her to change. We need her to be accountable or she can retire.”

In a video posted by Abdullah, David Lacey pointed a gun and said, “Get off. Get off of my porch.”

He was an investigative auditor with the DA’s office until his 2016 retirement.

“His response was in fear, and now that he realizes what happened, he wanted me to say to the protesters, the person that he showed the gun to, that he was sorry, that he was profoundly sorry.” the prosecutor said. She also said she also was sorry.

Sorry?  Really?  When was the last time “sorry” made a unlawful threat to use deadly force OK?

Lacey said she has received death threats and has been followed, photographed and confronted repeatedly. She said she expects people to exercise their First Amendment rights, “but our home is our sanctuary.”

“I do not believe it is fair or right for protesters to show up at the homes of people who dedicate their lives to public service,” Lacey said. She said the gun is registered but would not say if there were other weapons in her house.

Lacey said she has offered to meet with members of Black Lives Matter one on one or in a small gathering. She said the group has rejected those options.

“It seems like what they like is to embarrass me and intimidate me,” Lacey said.

But Black Lives Matter organizers said Lacey has refused to meet with them and has never extended such invitations. They said Lacey would not meet with them publicly so they claimed they were forced to go to her home.

They set up chairs on the sidewalk and three members rang her doorbell, Abdullah said.

“We heard what sounded like a gun being cocked,” she said. “I don’t know how I mustered the words to say ‘good morning’ but I did.”

She said David Lacey, who is black, pointed the gun “inches” from her chest.

Detectives are investigating a “possible assault with a deadly weapon,” the LAPD said in a statement.

Robert Weisberg, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said Lacey could potentially face felony or misdemeanor charges, such as assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing of a firearm or making criminal threats.

But Lacey could claim he acted in self-defense, Weisberg said, and point to his wife’s history of being the subject of protests to make the justification more plausible.

“Would a reasonable person in his situation believe that exhibiting a gun is justified?” Weisberg said.

Lacey’s office said the case could be brought to an independent prosecutor’s office and the state attorney general’s office is assisting the LAPD.

In the video, Abdullah says off-camera: “Good morning. Are you going to shoot me?”

The man says, “I will shoot you. Get off of my porch.”

Abdullah responds: “Can you tell Jackie Lacey that we’re here?”

The man says: “I don’t care who you are, get off of my porch right now. We’re calling the police right now.”

Police were called the home after being told roughly 50 protesters were outside. There were no arrests.

Lacey, a two-term incumbent, is facing George Gascon, the former San Francisco district attorney, and former public defender Rachel Rossi. The race is nonpartisan and will be decided if one of the candidates receives more than half the votes Tuesday. If no one gets a majority, the top two will face off in November.

Gascon’s campaign did not immediately comment.

“As district attorney, I will never run from the community,” Rossi said in a statement. “And I never thought I’d have to say it, but I will also never threaten to shoot — or have others threaten to shoot — community members protesting my actions.”

comments

  1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

    30 people showing up for a a pre dawn “meeting” sounds like something out of a 1950’s Klan field manual.
    I would vote for her husband.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      30 angry people don’t have to be armed to intimidate the living shit out of someone. Just ask millions of black residents of the deep south.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Yeah sure, I’ll just hop in my time machine and go back 80 years or so.

        1. avatar PTM says:

          80? Try 40.

        2. avatar Kevin says:

          You can time warp back to 1992 for the LA riots and stay there for all I care.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          I lived in KY and WV in the late 50’s early 60’s. Traveling south into Tn and Georgia I saw plenty of ‘Whites Only’ signs and segregated bathrooms. That hasn’t been that long ago.

        4. avatar Hydguy says:

          JWM: awe… you think the South in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s was the pinnacle of racism because of signs.
          In the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, you could be shot For being in the wrong part of DC just for being white.
          Ignorant sacks of crap like you perpetuate the myth that only whites can be racist.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          hyd. Never said that only whites can be racist. And if you think the old south was just hurtful signs….you’re truly the ignorant sack of crap.

          Have nice day.

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Hydguy,

          List them. At least a few of them.
          Because according to the UCR that didn’t happen. Just peruse the stats and look where the victim of murder was white, and the perpetrator was black, and see how many correlate to specific zip codes. There’s a zero correlation.
          https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications#Hate-Crime%20Statistics
          As far as “hate crimes”, which includes more than just race, both blacks and whites commit them at the same rate.

        7. avatar Hydguy. says:

          Lol!!
          I lived there in that timeframe.
          There was no ‘hate crime’ bs in the 80’s and ‘90’s.
          Go back to sleep little sheep.

          When Miner agrees with you, you know you are wrong.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          Credit where credit is due.

          Thanks JWT and JWM, for truth telling.

          To speak the truth is to shame the devil.

        9. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Oh, you lived there? It should be really easy for you to name a few then. Go ahead. Get on it.
          You can’t? Sounds like you were the same scared little pitty princess back then that you are today.
          And you should probably also go ahead and click the link I provided that shows “hate crimes” tracked in the 90s. Is reading comprehension challenging for you? There are disability friendly apps for that. Should I recommend a few for you?

        10. avatar Hydguy says:

          Awe… mad wittle man is mad because I won’t do his job for him. Typical low IQ liberal.
          Poor thing. Being a liberal must suck.
          Go back to the pasture, little sheep.

        11. avatar Hydguy says:

          And once again, since you are stupid, there was no ‘hate crime’ statutes in the ‘80’s or ‘90’s.
          Nor should there be today.

        12. avatar jwtaylor says:

          So you can’t? Is it because you weren’t even alive yet in the 90s?

      2. avatar CanoeIt says:

        Or any major city in the country, on any given day…

    2. avatar Responsible father says:

      Since we’ve all assumed a priori for some reason that the second KKK was bad, it might worthwhile to know that they never actually showed up on people’s lawns.

      They did promote Christianity and perform extra-judicial punishment to blacks who raped white girls.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        And the occasional student trying to register voter’s, and Medgar Evan’s a postal worker, or little Black girls in a church.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        The clan is a public service organization?

        Punishment for black men who rape white girls?
        Sometimes, those white girls lie, just ask Emmett Till.

        Burning crosses in peoples yard is promoting Christianity?

        Jesus is so proud of you.

        1. avatar Kill your TV says:

          First, Emmitt till totally did do it. Just because the TV says otherwise, doesn’t make it so.

          Second, they were cross lightings. The second KKK did it as a sign of faith in Jesus. You may not agree with it or like it, but the KKK was pro-Christianity.

          How much TV have you watched?

        2. avatar Juan Pablo Valdez de la Huerta says:

          Cross lightings weren’t to desecrate the cross, but to let it burn into your heart. Also- the KKK never did it on peoples’ lawns. It’s weird to me as a Catholic, but it’s important to understand what they meant by it. They were promoting Protestant Christianity.

          Just like Nazis, people are making up all this stuff after the fact.

          Also Emmitt Till did “me too” that girl. He was convicted by a Jury. Under duress, the lady said that she exaggerated certain claims- but c’mon, a black guy harassing a white girl? Yeah- it probably happened.

        3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Presumably, a troll account making gratuitous racist comments that the gun-haters can then selectively quote to portray all TTAG readers as a bunch of bigots

        4. avatar ebd10 says:

          Emmett Till did NOT do that of which he was accused. Know how I know? Because his accuser admitted that she lied. That child suffered a harsh, cruel death at the hands of a bunch of bigots because of a lie.

          So, when a group of “protesters” show up on your porch, claiming some sort of miscarriage of justice, having a gun is a good idea.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Kill your TV,

          TV didn’t say Till didn’t do it, his accuser did. She recanted.

        6. avatar A. C. says:

          Kill your TV said:
          “First, Emmitt till (sic) totally did do it. Just because the TV says otherwise, doesn’t make it so.”

          TV only says so because Till’s accuser recanted her accusation. The sexual assault didn’t happen. See here:
          https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/how-author-timothy-tyson-found-the-woman-at-the-center-of-the-emmett-till-case

        7. Kill your TV said:
          “First, Emmitt till (sic) totally did do it. Just because the TV says otherwise, doesn’t make it so.”

          TV only says so because Till’s accuser recanted her accusation. The sexual assault didn’t happen. See here:
          https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/how-author-timothy-tyson-found-the-woman-at-the-center-of-the-emmett-till-case

          Wow.

          That khunt was the Blasey Ford bitch of 1955.

      3. avatar Boogaloo says:

        Plus those guys were really fun at parties. Always good for a few laughs.

        Geezo-Pete, what alternative universe does a person have to be living in to think the KKK was a positive force for good?

        You are one sick SOB.

        1. avatar Reason says:

          yea they were really fun at parties. Just look at Governor Coon Man I bet he is a hoot.

        2. avatar El Duderino says:

          “Hey there fellow gun-owning boogalooists, that KKK sure was a pretty awesome force for social justice in the post-Reconstruction Deep South, huh fellas?”

      4. avatar jwm says:

        responsible father. I had klan members in my extended family. You’re absolutely full of shit. Including an uncle that did a few years in the pen for raping a white girl.

        Nobody that is mentally fit can mistake the klan for anything but bad. Same as antifa.

      5. avatar Ben Garner says:

        You sound a lot like Bernie when he talks lovingly of Fidel Castro, “Look what he did for literacy rates.”

        F**k a bunch of that noise, and yours too.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          You mean he sounds just like Donald Trump when Trump says that Kim Jong Un is a great leader and that he loves him?

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          You mean the Kim that’s the leader of the communist party you espouse to?

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Ain’t no, is it the head of this holler.

          I’m more of a FDR socialist, just like George Orwell.

          With all the crony capitalist propaganda circulating now, it’s easier for people to make the mistake.

          I think we should get the billionaires out of our government, that’s a major problem. And Donald Trump has appointed the wealthiest cabinet in the history of this country.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          fdr? The guy that rounded up Americans and put them in concentration camps because of their race? That fdr is who you model yourself after?

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          I do not condemn FDR anymore then I condemn Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves.

          That was the standard of the times, and we can’t hold them accountable if they followed the norms and morals of the day.

          We know better now, mankind has learned much over there intervening years.

          But to be clear, I do hold Robert E Lee responsible for his traitorous, oath breaking armed insurrection against the duly constituted government of the United States of America.

          Imagine if you will, a long time, seemingly honorable, United States military officer breaking his oath and taking up arms against the newly elected Republican president because he didn’t agree with his policies.

          Most would call that treason, wouldn’t you?

      6. avatar PTM says:

        @ResponsibleFather

        I hope your comment was simply a lame attempt at making some kind of sick joke. The rise of the “Invisible Empire” in the USA during the twenties was a tragedy from every possible perspective, perpetuating the post-Civil War terrorism committed against Blacks throughout the South during the Reconstruction.

        As for them being “Christian” … that’s a sick understanding of “Christian.”

        As for never showing up at people’s houses or front yards….get a clue, this is what they did precisely all over the South. My parents were paid a “friendly” visit by some of the local sheet-wearing locals when they helped organize the first integrated Lutheran school teachers’ conference in Pensacola, Florida. A burning cross on our front yard was kind of a clue as to their “Christian” intentions.

        The local “white” hotels refused to provide meeting space, so they had to use a “black” hotel.

        If you are not kidding around…wow…I pity you.

        Oh, and one more question: Do you wash your KKK outfit at home or send it out for dry cleaning? Heavy or light starch?

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          It wasn’t just the South it happened in.
          Your ignorance of reality is glaring.

      7. avatar Coolbreeze says:

        The KKK promoted Christianity? Your credibility just self destructed. Perverted Christianty or blasfemed Christianity is the truth of the matter.

    3. avatar Chadwick says:

      And he’d still vote to strip your rights without due process. I’ll leave the pacifism to hippies and you. Enemies of the constitution deserve to love like the gander.

    4. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      I’m sympathetic to the husband too in this situation. But the point remains: one set of rules for us, another set or rules for “the man.”

  2. avatar LFOD says:

    He did the right thing. Sorry, they were behaving in a threatening manner, full stop.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Bullshit. If any of us had behaved like that we would have been arrested for brandishing and making threats.

      1. avatar Username says:

        Speak for yourself, cracker. He was too dark to be charged for aiming at BLM.

        1. avatar Rand says:

          You can bet if it was a white group outside the home there certainly would have been no apology to the crowd. On the other hand, I would have met them with something that had a bore big enough to for the crowd to brag about the size.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        In my state, it is my understanding that one cannot be charged for brandishing on their own property.

        And I will also say, in my state if 30 people of any color were to show up at the county prosecutors home in the predawn hours in a threatening manner, the deputies would be happy to remove the remains at first light.

      3. avatar Draven says:

        especially in CA

      4. avatar jwtaylor says:

        It depends entirely where you are. My local constable would have admonished me for not shooting sooner.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Unfortunately, your constable would have advised you to take an illegal course of action.

          In West Virginia, we abolished the constable system decades ago, they have no training in law-enforcement or justice and made plenty of mistakes.

        2. avatar MB says:

          @Miner49er, here in Texas, a constable has full arrest powers same as any LEO. They do traffic enforcement, respond to 911 calls, along with property confiscation under authority of a court order. Here Local city police, DPS State troopers, Sheriffs/Deputies, Constables, and Park Rangers all have same arrest powers.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Miner, when you don’t know what you’re talkin about, keep your mouth shut. Texas has a well-established legal doctrine, often referred to as the Texas exception, about people trespassing on your property at night and the reasonable assumption that they are there to do you harm.

        4. avatar Hydguy says:

          You should follow your own advice, chump.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Hydguy, Still mad you got caught in your lie? Troll harder, princess.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Your constable would tell you to shoot people who came to your door unarmed, in a nonthreatening manner, politely asking to speak to the elected official who lives there?

          Perhaps you are right, it would be wrong for citizens to hold the district attorney accountable for their decisions by publicly questioning their actions, they only allow that in America.

        7. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Miner,
          1. There’s no such thing as a “polite” mob making demands in the dark while trespassing.
          2. There’s no elected official at my home.
          3. My driveway is a mile long.

          Pay attention.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          My driveway is 2500 m long, and I’m still not allowed to shoot people on my front porch.

          I mean come on now, you saw the video, there was no threatening. I agree, you could order them off the porch and off your property and they would need to comply.

          But there was no threat, explicit or implied.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      After reading several sources of this story, I agree. I would likely have done the same thing. I don’t know about other states, but here in CA we have something called “implied access”, meaning a person may lawfully enter your property IF going straight to the customary entrance (typically a porch or front door) of the home due to the reasonable expectation that you allow people to do so, provided there is no fence or physical boundary established to prevent it. However, as soon as you tell a person he/she must leave your property, then they must do so immediately or risk the charge of trespassing.

      However, if 50 people showed up at my door in protest against something my family said/did, I would feel severely outnumbered. I’d call the local Sheriff station and then open then door to tell everyone to get off my property, with a gun at least behind the door with me in case anyone had any intent of harming me. It’s my understanding that the husband in this story called the police, told the trespassers to get off his property, never brandished his gun or pointed it at anyone, and communicated everything in advance to allow the trespassers the opportunity to safely leave and avoid injury or arrest. All within the law.

      Fortunately, no one was hurt, but now everyone knows there’s a man inside who will meet you at the door with deadly force if necessary, if you choose to show up on his porch in the middle of the night with an agitated mob.

      That’s what ‘Murica is about.

      I’m on his team.

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        Here in Texas we’d be fine with displaying the weapon in our own property but pointing is assault , unless threatened.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          I don’t live in Texas, but JW Taylor says in an above post that his constable would advise him to shoot those protesters. I think that would be illegal.

          Do you think JW Taylor lives in a different Texas than the Texas where you live?

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        I have watched the video of the man pointing is handgun at people and telling them that he was willing to shoot them.

        Whether or not that was justified is a different matter.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Oops, you’re right. I didn’t play the embedded vid above until now (previously skipped over it thinking it was only a still photo). He does appear to be pointing it at people with his finger on the trigger. It may not conform to the legal definition of “brandishing” due to the fact that he’s standing in his own doorway and arguably feeling threatened (hence no charges pressed against him), but it’s foolish nevertheless. I certainly wouldn’t do that.

          Update…I reverse my earlier opinion above and now consider this guy to be irresponsible.

          ****
          TTAG, we’re regressing back to requiring CAPTCHAs. Why?

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      you come to someone’s home..[at an ungodly hour]..and invade their private space..you should.expect to be “traumatized”…..

  3. avatar MDH says:

    The point of this entire exercise was to threaten and intimidate the homeowners. The BLM protesters got exactly the appropriate response from Mr. Lacey, who in my opinion demonstrated a level of restraint the protesters clearly did not deserve.

    1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

      +1. He did absolutely 100% what he was justifiable in doing when perceiving a wholly tangible threat to himself, his family and his home manifest on his front porch.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Are you stating that black people are a threat? Sounds pretty racist to me. Troll!

        1. avatar Dev says:

          I wish morons like you couldn’t comment.

          As far as what happened yes I believe he was 100% right to protect his family and himself from an unknown threat, in this case a mob of people gathering outside an elected official’s home before dawn.

          The DA, however, made a huge mistake in apologizing. She just encouraged more of this mob behavior.

  4. avatar MB says:

    I guess location matters, show up as a mob at 5:30am to someone’s home in Wyoming, Oklahoma or Texas and you are likely to need a ride in an ambulance at the very least, if not a coroner. I am not recommending anyone take that path of response, but the likely outcome to the trespasser(s) is a lot more dangerous.

    Texas Penal Codes 9.41 and 9.42 together define when someone may use deadly force in defense of property (either land, or tangible personal property).

    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Nope. This is a case of politicians having more rights than little people. 30 to 50 (reports vary) people setting up folding chairs on the sidewalk and three walking up to ring the door bell and ask politely to see the politician are not a mob. No reasonable person would perceive a threat from that.

      Brandishing a gun and pointing it at people, with your finger on the trigger no less, would get any of us reading this arrested.

      1. avatar MB says:

        @enuf, Like I said, It depends are where you live. You must live in a Communist state.

        1. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

          MB- I do not live in a communist state, and if I was one of those protesters, it would have been legal for me to use deadly force on the homeowner. He obvioisly could not contrrol his emotions enough to be a responsible gun owner.
          The homeowner is lucky it was not open carry protestors, but that is why he felt he could threaten the protetsors safely. In a state that respects the 2nd rights, the homeowner would have been a legal threat to use a rifle round on from the sidewalk. They were protesting and not being violent.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          in for a penny,
          in the state of Texas, if you had drawn your gun on the homeowner after he told you to leave and you had the opportunity to leave, even if he was threatening to kill you, even if he was actively firing on you, you would be in violation of the law.
          A claim of self defense (as an affirmative defense) is not valid if in conjunction with the commission of a crime against a person. You can’t commit a crime (and trespassing is at least one of the crimes they were committing) and then assault someone lawfully attempting to stop you from that crime.

      2. avatar napresto says:

        Protesters: “Let’s assemble en mass so as to intimidate and cause disruption at a time when honest folk are in bed. Let’s go in a group to the porch and ring the doorbell, awakening the homeowners in a way that is certain to elicit an angry, emotional, and probably confused response. Let’s pretend to be polite, asking for a ‘conversation,’ even though no one in their right mind would expect that to happen at 5:00 a.m. We know what what’s actually going on here. We’re left-wing agitators: what are they gonna do to us, really?”

        Homeowner: “Let me wave my gun around and stick it in people’s faces like a moron instead of calling the police to disperse this mob that’s formed. It’s much better to look tough than to solve the problem, even though my big talk certainly doesn’t seem to be accomplishing anything. I’ll make sure to keep my finger on the trigger so my chances of an negligent discharge right into someone’s chest are extremely high. I’m a democrat politician: what are they gonna do to me, really?”

        The internet: “I’m outraged! Outraged, I tell you!”

        There are no heroes in this story, only scoundrels.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          A few years ago, a group of five young men drove to the perimeter of my home property and started walking around. I met them at the boundary and asked them why they were there before informing them they needed to leave. At that point, they began to slowly surround me. They didn’t make any verbal threats, but they now had me at a disadvantage.

          I withdrew a large hunting knife I had with me and simply held it at my side, pointed down. Never mentioned it, and never pointed it at anyone. However, that was all they needed to understand that I meant to protect myself, and after a few insults, they got into their car and drove off. I never saw them again.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “instead of calling the police”

          It’s my understanding that the homeowner had indeed called the police, is that incorrect?

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        something similar happened to a friend of mine…no charges filed…funny how people seem surprised…even outraged…when they encounter this type of reaction…

    2. avatar Dude says:

      “justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land”

      If I understand this correctly, this is a terrible law. It’s justified when they believe it’s necessary? There are times when you accidentally trespass, or even intentionally trespass (as part of your job, etc). It isn’t okay to open fire on anyone you see walking through part of your property.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Reasonable is the key word. A reasonable person would ask the trespasser to leave, assuming they aren’t an obvious threat.
        In this case the protesters won’t leave so killing them all is reasonable.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I regularly trespass, but in my state, I’m legally able to do so. I’m supposed to notify the owner first, but sometimes they aren’t home or don’t answer the door, and you can’t always take the time to get certified mail to them.

        2. avatar Dan W says:

          And a reasonable person doesn’t care that you are delivering mail to them.

          There is an obvious escalation of force here.

          If you don’t want someone on your property you ask them to leave. If they refuse and or become hostile, things more potent than words come into play.

          And sitting on the sidewalk is the “I’m not touching you” game children play. If you try to provoke someone into violence you deserve to succeed.

        3. avatar Dude says:

          I don’t deliver the mail. The certified mail comment was regarding notification of my future trespass.

    3. avatar Consider This says:

      If FOX journalist Tucker Carlson opened his door and pointed a gun at the ANTIFA mob who came to his house and cracked his front door in 2018 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/08/they-were-threatening-me-my-family-tucker-carlsons-home-targeted-by-protesters/), take a moment and imagine what the consequences would have been for him. It wouldn’t be the same as what happened in LA. In communist Hawaii, the homeowner would be immediately arrested for Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree (707-716HRS).

      Double standards and hypocrisy are abundant.

  5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Well. According to the TTAG Libertarians, Liberals, and the Leftists. You have to right to protect private property. Is this still true for you???

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      edit
      You have NO right to protect private property. Is this still true for you???

      1. avatar enuf says:

        No private property was being threatened. There was no protection needed.

        1. avatar Enuf Is An Idiot says:

          Every village needs an idiot, and apparently Enuf is trying out, hard, for the job around here. Well done, moron. Keep it up.

    2. avatar Phil says:

      You lost your mind and this is in direct contradiction to Libertarian beliefs: (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

      This is directly from: https://www.lp.org/platform/

      Do you ever get tired of being wrong and sounding stupid?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        You are either new here or you are a liar. Libertarians Liberals and the Left on TTAG have all said you have no right to protect private property.

        1. avatar Squiggy81 says:

          Any Libertarian that says that is not a Libertarian. Simple as that. Take a few minutes and read through the platform before grouping Libertarians with anyone on the left.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Chris T cherry picks comments and draws conclusions from only those. For instance, Reason can write pro property rights and pro 2nd amendment articles without fail for decades but if one of their contributors says something positive about someone that said something that could be even just be construed to be anti-property rights or anti-second amendment, then in Chris’s head all libertarians everywhere are communists. Chris just hates them for not advocating Republicans as much as he thinks they should.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          FYI
          When Arizona ranchers using AR-15s held illegal alien trespassers for the border patrol. The ACLU sued them in court. And took one of the ranchers land and gave it the illegal aliens. Libertarians were very happy. But Libertarians were not very happy when Joe Horn shot two illegal aliens who tried to attack him on his front lawn. Horn was protecting his neighbors home who the criminals had broken into.

          It’s not just Reason magazine.

          1. https://www.fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

          2. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders

          3. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2016/gun-control-grounds-compromise

        4. avatar Phil says:

          Its litterally in direct violation of Libertarian beliefs. FFS you can read the positions directly off their official website. As others have commented you cherry pick what you like or miss quote what was said by Libertarians or people not even associated with the Libertarian movement. You seriously make yourself look like a fool.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          fyi
          Your party ran a gun grabber for VP in 2016. Libertarians are the real fools who sold their souls for national popularity. Your VP candidate was prodrug legalization. He never regretted passing a gun ban. The Nations first state level AWB. Former Mass. Gov William Weld.

        6. avatar Jon in CO says:

          @Chris T

          What’s wrong with legalization?

          Being as I’m an ACTUAL libertarian, not some made up one from a political run down, government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do in the privacy of my own home.

          I’m pro private property, (which means things like eminent domain are theft, plain and simple) I’m extremely, more than probably most on here, pro gun. People coming into this country need to be checked, especially non-citizens. I’m pro weed legalization at the very minimum. I’m pro flat-rate taxation. If I’m not hurting you, taking your things/destroying your things, and not violating your rights, leave me the hell alone to do what I want.

        7. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To Jon in CO
          I don’t care if drugs are legalized. I just place civil rights as the number one most important issue for our Liberty. Not getting intoxicated on your favorite drug. That does not represent Liberty. The ownership of Arms is what represents Liberty.

          As a Libertarian you look at gun civil rights as being equal to drug legalization correct?

          I have a fundamentally different view of what is important to protecting our Liberty, than Libertarians do.
          And legalizing drugs DOESN’T PROTECT Liberty.

          Some questions for you.
          Are civil rights and drug legalization of equal value to you?

          In Colorado California and Washington State, you got legalized recreational marijuana intoxication. And you lost gun rights in all three states.
          Having guns it’s any more important to you, than having legal Marijuana intoxication correct?

        8. avatar Jon in CO says:

          I would much rather have both, than neither, however to answer the question, no, I would rather have 30rd mags (easily) accessible vs full blown weed legalization. I believe freedom is choice of what to do with your life/time/days/etc. There’s no reason on a federal or state level that pot shouldn’t be legal, nor is there any reason to bar someone who goes home and gets high after work or before bed from having a select-fire sub gun in the corner of their bedroom.

          This is where political team ideology gets stupid. One side believes in one, and not the other. I believe that a libertarian is a true centrist, however they also cover the extremes in both sides, to a degree. I want legalization of all things, within reason.( I don’t believe the average person should be allowed or encouraged to possess weapons grade plutonium, for example) The NFA, the GCA, and Hughes are absolute infringements, and should be removed. Until the second is treated the same as the other rights, It’s not freedom. It’s none of anyone’s, including governments’, business what I own, what I do with it, or how much of them I have. Just as it is with any other item, until I do something wrong, leave me be.

          Cliff notes/bottom line, I agree, civil rights are much more important, though, stretching freedom further, in any regard, is a win.

        9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Jon in CO
          It seems you and I do agree. Civil-rights rights are more important than intoxication. And that is a gratifying that we do agree on that. The problem with Libertarians and drugs is that they refuse to recognize the consequences. Of this drug use. San Francisco has become a sh*t hole. It wasn’t like that when I was a kid. It was a beautiful place. And it’s not that way anymore. You can’t have a gun there. But you can get intoxicated. And crime is rampant there. And the residents can’t protect themselves.

          Most Libertarians are very satisfied with this outcome in San Francisco. Because to them intoxication is more important than civil rights. And most Libertarians don’t really care.
          About the negative social consequences including the really serious health hazards that now exist in places like San Francisco. Where people, drug addicts, openly defecate and urinate in the public areas.

  6. avatar jwm says:

    Traumatized? Bullshit. Show up as a mob at a persons home in the predawn hours and you have to expect that person is going to come out armed. You would be retarded to think otherwise.

    When you deliberately set out to provoke a violent response and you get a violent response you are at fault.
    Everybody in that crowd should have been taken in for a 5150.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Their was no mob. Mobs are violent. Mobs do not set up chairs on the sidewalk and send three people to ring your doorbell and speak politely. That is not what a mob does.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It was BLM. They are basically the Klan with a tan.

        1. avatar Hillbilly says:

          So they are self hating blacks?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “So they are self hating blacks?”

          They are Leftists, and Leftists hate themselves and America…

      2. avatar Boogaloo says:

        I’m pretty sure if the tables were turned on YOU or on white people you would not be so sanguine. I smell racism.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        Before daylight? You’re letting your tds show again.

      4. avatar Hush says:

        Enuf is correct. There were people outside but that does not necessarily mean they were a “mob”. If those people did not have weapons or display any in a threatening manner, then the homeowner overreacted. Also, the home owner did not have to open the door for he could have remained indoors while waiting for the police to arrive. Keep in mind these people were not trying to kick his door in or doing anything other than loitering. And I do not think loitering is a killing offense, nor is ringing a doorbell. The home owner responded in an unnecessary way when he could have easily waited indoors for LE to arrive. The surprise is that Mr Lacey did not know better!

    2. avatar Dude says:

      I rolled a yard with some friends on Halloween (13 yrs old). Owner comes out on his back porch and fires a gun. This was in a neighborhood. He probably pulled a Biden, and it worked. We took off and didn’t come back. No one was traumatized.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Not the only time I’ve been “shot at”. I wasn’t traumatized the other time either.

  7. avatar PTM says:

    I feel for the man…strikes me he was simply defending his wife and his home from thugs. This crap of mobs of people trespassing on private property to yell/scream about ANY ISSUE is out of control. I don’t care what the politics or issues are. If a mob of 2A people did this to anti-gunners, I’d be saying the same thing.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      No report has described any thugs. There were no thugs present. People brought folding chairs and sat on the sidewalk. That is not thug behavior. Three of them walked up and rang the doorbell and tried to speak politely. This is also not thug behavior.

      The politician’s husband pointed a gun and threatened to kill people who were obviously no threat to anybody.

      He should be jailed for that.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        In many cities, the sidewalk is still the private property of the homeowner, there is only an implied right of way for passersby.

        The moment you stop in front of a home and begin engaging the homeowner, you have lost your right of way and he can tell you to move on because you are technically trespassing on his property.

      2. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

        Would you please GO AWAY????
        Everything that comes out of your filthy mouth just makes me wanna vomit….

        These fkn criminal trespassers will push someone too far someday, hopefully soon, and then they’ll get what they deserve for harassing decent people in the middle of the night…

  8. avatar Taxman NC says:

    If these idiots come to your door you have every right to point your gun at them and tell them to get off your property! Call 911 and report the CRIME/FELONY and take pictures with your phone. NO ONE CAN THREATEN ME ON MY PROPERTY. And if any of these idiots step ahead you shoot them dead! Absolute right to protect yourself from the thugs!

    1. avatar PTM says:

      The alternative to letting a threatening mob on YOUR PROPERTY know you want them to leave, without showing them you are armed, is simply, I suppose, to wait until they try to come through your door and then shooting them.

      When I was a kid growing up (many decades ago) an elderly couple in our neighborhood had two armed thugs pounding on their door in the middle of the night, demanding they open. The old guy in the house had a double-barrelled shotgun loaded up and warned them to leave. When they did not, he had his wife open the door and he literally blew them both off his porch into his front yards, with various bits and pieces scattered about.

      No charges were filed.

      So, I suppose the home owner was simply supposed to huddle up in his house and wait for somebody to pound on his door or such, or actually break in?

      It’s a fine line, I realize, but … again … it appears to me he simply ordered them to leave. Whether he pointed the firearm at them or not…even having it in his hand at the low ready would be considered illegal there?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Very illegal. No reasonable person would perceive danger in what this group did.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I would, and I consider myself to be very reasonable. Within reason. Or so the reasoning goes…

        2. avatar jwm says:

          What makes you think your judgment in this matter is reasonable?

    2. avatar enuf says:

      There were no thugs present. You are reading into this thing events that did not happen. Behave as you suggest and you will go to jail for murder.

      These people may have been rude, but they were sitting in chairs on the public sidewalk. Three went up to ring the door bell and ask to talk with the politician.

      I’m not into their particular cause, but I see nothing threatening in what those people did.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      In most states, someone can destroy your property, including killing / maiming your pets, and you have no right to open fire on them. Now, you could come out, and let them engage you. Then they become a threat.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        *Even that doesn’t work in some states. Think duty to retreat. Know your local laws and prosecutors.

    4. avatar Miner49er says:

      “NO ONE CAN THREATEN ME ON MY PROPERTY.”

      Did you even read the article or view the video?

      There were no threats, no intimidation, no weapons displayed by the protesters.

      Typically, one must have evidence of either a direct assault on the homeowner or an attempted forcible entry of their home, before you can employ lethal force.

      Somebody walking up on your porch, knocking on the door and asking to speak with the public official who lives there is not a threatening act.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It is if it is done in the early hours of the morning. This is nothing more than a gussied up left wing lynch mob. In several states, he could have legally gunned them all down the second they set foot on his property.

  9. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Typical idle threats from both sides with zero action. Ones scared and the others glad of it. “I was just about to”, “If he/she did that over her I woulda” “One more step and I woulda”. Both sides are weak as puppy piss and softer than medicated cotton.
    Wake me if someone actually does something.

  10. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Love it when the Left eats their own! That said, I would have done the same thing he did, only with my Maverick 88. But I also live somewhere where defending my family and property isn’t just for the elites.

  11. avatar Chief Censor says:

    It appears the racists are out in force in the comments. Maybe they are not racist, maybe they’re just dumb.

    When Virginian politicians do wrong Republicans threaten civil war [death] and they show up with guns to send a message.

    How dare unarmed women show up to protest their representative before elections. How dare black people get anywhere near tar and feather attitudes toward leftists’ goverment. That’s for white peoeple.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I was people like you who said the KKK with a 130 year long history of attacking black people, had a civil right to march in black neighborhoods while carrying guns. But you never have supported blacks carrying guns have you???

    2. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Yeah, BLM are renowned for their egalitarian attitudes and pacifistic nature. Those poor, unarmed people. You are a lying, disingenuous, slimey little propagandist aren’t you.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Where did I lie?

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Virginia gun owners didn’t show up at coonman’s house in the early hours of the morning. There’s a difference.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Doesn’t he live in the mansion on the capitol grounds?

    4. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      Did Virginia protesters show up in the pre dawn darkness unannounced for meetings with politicians or did they assembled on public property in full view of Police?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Yes, Virginians did show up in such a manner. They are still saying they will start shooting government if they enforce Democrats’ gun control.

        Why are you going against the whole “tar and feather” American mentality of the founders? Why are you defending bad politicians, the ones that disarm you while they stay armed and threaten your life if you dare protest their actions at their homes? Why do you promote civil war but refuse direct peaceful unarmed protest ? Why do you support Levine’s position on this matter? Who’s side are you on?

        I think people are projecting their racial bias so they can have contradictory thoughts in their minds to promote their hate for the other team. When the other team does something they have to support the opposite. Very childish level thinking. Just like when Republicans told Antifa to not join them in protest against the white supremacist governor of Virginia because they are the other side although they both agree on that single issue. You would think single issue voters, such as Republicans gun owners, would have not made such an effort to divide on the issue.

        During a Bernie rally a white male called out a black male for wearing a Black Guns Matter shirt. He eventually physically attacked the black male. They were both there to support Bernie. Why did the white male Bernie support attack a black male Bernie supporter? Was it because a black man would dare think differently or was it just about guns?

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          You need to update your news sources. Delegate Levine is a liar.

          “FOIA Response Concerning Virginia Delegate Mark Levine”

          https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/02/26/foia-response-concerning-virginia-delegate-mark-levine/

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @Chris T in KY

          You are a liar. Fake news!

          Are you even American? You don’t seem to be from America.

          https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/armed-gun-rights-activist-protests-with-shotgun-outside-virginia-delegates-home/2219266/

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          I want to see the police report. Which does not exist. Also as I said before people like you supported the KKK marching through black neighborhoods while carry guns. But you never supported blacks carrying guns.
          This voter is using his 1st amendment right to peacefully protest in the good old US of A. The delegate is uncomfortable with citizens, constituents, protesting him. The fact that he is armed means nothing. He didn’t point his guns at anyone only anything. He didn’t point his guns at anyone’s house either.

          Unlike the LA DA’s husband who pointed a loaded gun at unarmed protesters.

          It is about race with you???

          Its ok if a black points a loaded gun at another black? But it’s wrong if a white person peacefully carries a gun in protest an anti-civil rights white government official???

        4. avatar MDH says:

          Levine believes he has the ‘right’ to deprive others of their fundamental Constitutionally recognized God given rights, but cowers, snivels and whines when others lawfully exercise those rights. Clearly, Levine is an elitist coward and exactly the kind of would be tyrant the 2nd Amendment was enacted to allow us to defend ourselves from.

    5. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Your entire framing of that is nonsense and you know it. The whites are evil and racist and horrible and the blacks are all good and put upon and holy. Nobody can just be people or individuals. You’re just another BUT MUH NARRATIVE authoritarian propaganda mouthpiece.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Here you are assuming everyone outside that politician’s home was black because they are part of BLM.

        Stop. Just stop. Every time a white male gets triggered he has to say, “We are all individuals. There is no such thing as race or racism. There is no teams in America.” Then they collectivize for their interests when it benefits them.

        Do you identify as a Republican? If so, you are not behaving as an individual. Which is why I assume you are a white male who got triggered by truths. Do you unite under the flag as an American?

        It’s the same old argument people like Malcolm X had to deal with when white people wanted to win in politics.

        I am fine with the people showing up at their representatives’ homes for a morally justified protest. It’s the American way. I don’t care what those people look like. I would hope the entire town showed up for the event.

    6. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

      Shut up you racist….. 🙂

  12. avatar ChoseDeath says:

    There is just so, so much FAIL in that series of events. I am astounded right now.

  13. avatar David Bradford says:

    #1 If you feel threatened by the people outside your door DON’T OPEN THE DOOR.

    Why is he not in jail right now?
    If he was truly afraid for his life he never would have opened the door and stepped outside. No ability to claim self defense if you start the confrontation. Knocking on someone door is not a confrontation.
    Brandishing a firearm is a criminal offence, and just opening the door with a gun in hand = brandishing.
    Pointing a loaded firearm at someones chest, with your finger on the trigger, and stating “I will shoot you” = assault with a deadly weapon.
    Video documentation of the assault.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      David Bradford,

      I agree with everything that you stated except for this statement, “… just opening the door with a gun in hand = brandishing.”

      In my opinion simply opening the door with a firearm in hand is not brandishing as long as your body language is relaxed, your firearm is basically stationary and pointing at the ground or sky, and you do not suggest any threats via voice or body language (such as dragging your index finger across your neck or making a pretend “handgun” out of your index finger and thumb and mimicking a gunshot with recoil).

      A common definition of brandishing is to display a firearm in a menacing manner. Simply having a firearm in hand is not, in and of itself, menacing. Saying it another way, if you happen to be holding a firearm just as you would hold a briefcase in your hand, that is almost guaranteed to NOT be brandishing.

      Standard disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney and the above is NOT legal advice.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        It is rare that I open my door to a stranger without my gun in my hand (out of sight behind the door). And even if I do know who it is, I open carry at home (always) so my gun is visible but holstered any other time. If I fell threatened by whom ever is outside my door I am not stupid enough to open it in the first place.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          If I fell threatened by whom ever is outside my door I am not stupid enough to open it in the first place.

          Bingo! That is the real key to all of this.

          Opening the door to someone who is a legitimate threat makes it easier for that person to harm you. Of course you may have no way of knowing if someone knocking on your door is a threat. Equally obvious: someone who proceeds to try and breach your door removes all uncertainty as to whether or not they are a threat.

        2. avatar David Bradford says:

          Hence, the gun in my hand out of sight behind the door.

    2. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

      Not on my property….. in the middle of the night….. with a mob of people nonetheless….
      This isn’t a normal “knock on the door” you KNUCKLEHEAD

  14. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

    The question here is this. If any of us had opened the door and waved a gun around with finger on the trigger, would we be charged? If the answer is yes, then he should be charged. If the answer is no, then he acted properly. The article mentioned several possible charges, all of which he can, and should be charged with. However, it doesn’t mention reckless endangerment. By waving the handgun around like he did, he wasn’t only threatening the few who rang the doorbell. But also everyone on the sidewalk, cars driving past, people across the street in other houses. And finally, if he was in such fear that he felt the need to display a firearm was justified, why did he open the door? While behind a locked door, he was not in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, something that is needed to justify the use of deadly force.

    The bottom line here is this. If we would be charged, and he hasn’t, then the claims black lives matter are making seem to be true. We the little people are held to one set of laws, while those who rule over us are held to another set.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Much of your comment is accurate.

      The protesters were technically trespassing by setting up on the sidewalk, in most cities, the sidewalk is actually the homeowners property, with an implied right of way for passersby.

      But the legal remedy for trespassers is not waving a gun in your face and shouting I will shoot you, that becomes terroristic threatening at best and ADW at worst. But it’s the prosecutor’s husband, who are you going to get to prosecute him?

      Typically, both the prosecutor’s office and the local judge would recuse themselves and the state supreme court will appoint a special prosecutor and judge to handle the case.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Sidewalks are public property just like the street. There’s also public easement.

        To trespass a person there needs to be a sign posted, a physical barrier and an order from the person with power of attorney. So the protesters would have to get off the property after the man closed his door. They would have to go back to the public sidewalk to avoid arrest.

        If the politician feels she is being harassed by the same people, she can go to the court and file for an order. Then those people served will get arrested for being anywhere near her regardless of location. Also, depending on the order, those people will be disarmed under red flag laws.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Sidewalks are public property just like the street.”

          Not where I live, you might want to check the tax maps. The idea that the town or city owns a narrow strip of land running through everybody’s property is silly. Yes, the city or town or state may own the roadway, specified in this state is 7.5 feet from the center to each side (15’RoW) or 15 feet from the center to each side(30’RoW).

          There may be a city or town ordinance specifying a public easement across your property for the sidewalk, but it’s still your property.

          Humans aren’t even permitted to stop on the sidewalk, they must keep moving in order to prevent becoming an obstacle, known as blocking traffic or creating an obstruction.

          And clearly, setting up table and chairs on the sidewalk in front of someone’s home would violate multiple ordinances, hopefully leading to citations for individuals who failed to keep moving.

          This is why you see people marching in picket lines, I assure you they would much rather just stand there with their sign.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        he asked them to get off of his porch and away from his front door…not to get off the sidewalk…seems as though there is an implied threat here because of the proximity and the unusual hour…many criminals approach politely….at first….

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          I would agree if this was just one or two shady looking individuals.

          But these were clearly civic minded protesters, setting up tables and chairs on the sidewalk, knocking politely at the door and asking for the elected official.

          Why not just secure your weapon, shout through you’re still closed and locked front door go away, I am calling the police! And then dial 911 and white patiently for responding officers.

          When you open the locked, secure front door, it means you aren’t afraid of who is on the other side. And then to further be Barney bad ass and wave your gun at everyone is foolish at best, and assault with a deadly weapon at worst.

    2. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

      Go away pig….. you aren’t any better than the people you SERVE….. REMEMBER THAT…. YOU WORK FOR ME…. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND FOOL…
      NOW THEN, A HOMEOWNER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ANSWER THEIR DOOR TO CONFRONT THE TRESPASSERS….. CASTLE DOCTRINE, …… YOU MORONS

  15. avatar Dan W says:

    If you’re trying to provoke someone into violence you deserve to succeed.

  16. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    You know what would really traumatize them? Being hit on the head with a bike lock.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Precedent says that’s okay without provocation, as long as you belong to antifa.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        “Being hit on the head with a bike lock.”
        “Precedent says that’s okay without provocation, as long as you belong to antifa.”
        But ONLY if you’re a tenured college purfesser.
        The bike lock is an “advanced” debate tool, that ONLY the “professionals” use.
        It’s applied to the opponents cranium as a last resort, such as when they can’t win the debate with facts and empirical evidence.

        1. avatar Metal Man says:

          Shouldn’t you be off trying to sneak your gun I to an MLB stadium?

        2. avatar James Campbell says:

          No, baseball season hasn’t started up yet.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      +1

  17. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Someone needs to figure out if the gun only held 10 rounds and if not was the mag grandfathered?

    This is one of those DAs that probably believes no one needs a high cap mag for self defense.

    This should likely go to a special prosecutor who in the end will do nothing.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      WE had a Federal court mandated freedom week here in CA not so long ago. I bought 15 rounders for my g19. So it is entirely possible the man had legally purchased standard capacity mags for his weapon.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      mag capacity should be irrelevant when faced with a large, potentially hostile group…….

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        Nobody needs more than 10rds, remember?

  18. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    If he felt safe enough to open the door to verbalize his threats and brandish a gun, then he was not in fear of either his life or serious injury. He just wanted to intimidate these protesters. He’s guilty and should be charged and prosecuted; but by an independent outside prosecutor, not some stooge from his wife’s office.

    As for the protesters, they’re probably guilty of disturbing the peace. That’s a separate issue. Ultimately, these privacy-violating protests, where people harass you at your home, at restaurants, or other occasions and places outside of your official capacity as a public official, are exactly the tactics that the liberals encourage against others. Aside from what’s legal or not, it’s fun to see them turn on themselves.

  19. avatar NORDNEG says:

    A black pointing a gat at another black is no big deal, it happens every day in the big cities, they ought to be used to it. Now if it were a white dude pointing a gat at a black that would be a hate crime now, & the media would be all over it.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      That has already happened. In portland OR. A independent journalist was rushed at by a BLM mob. He pointed his gun at them and stopped the attack. He was arrested. The judge refused to even look at the video of the entire incident. He now has several thousand dollars in legal fees.

  20. avatar CTstooge says:

    Never mind all this legal shit. What’s Lacey packing there?

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      Yeet Cannon.

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    With trigger discipline like that, he should be a New York City cop.

    1. avatar Responsible father says:

      Irresponsible gun owner. Pointed at people with finger in trigger guard who weren’t threatening him.

      He would probably go to jail if he was white.

      #whitelivesmatter

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Because we can all assume a mob knocking at your door in the dark are selling Girl Scout Cookie’s

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Like we would be scared of a bunch of overweight women, old people and homosexuals? I heard not even the masked soy boys are scary.

          A true believer and follower will never have fear.

          An American with a long gun need not worry about a crowd of protesters. For one, they are not politicians disobeying the law and actively destroying the country’s foundation. Two, they got enough ammo for a zombie Apocalypse.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Chief Censor
          You Forget to include the large sagging exposed breasts of the overweight women description. Bernie Sanders also has women with exposed breasts as his rallies.
          (smile)

  22. avatar No one of consequence says:

    I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this yet:

    “I do not believe it is fair or right for protesters to show up at the homes of people who dedicate their lives to public service,” Lacey said.

    I wonder if she thinks this holds true for conservatives as well.

  23. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    I have received multiple death threats. That’s the get out of jail card all of the elitist and politicians use.

  24. avatar Prndll says:

    ‘Get off my lawn’ is not a reason to draw. I understand the sentiment but what he did was not appropriate. It was certainly time to get the firearm outta the drawer and on your person. Drawing and muzzling people just creates problems.

    1. avatar Responsible father says:

      Especially with finger on trigger.

      Fuck this guy.

    2. avatar Dan W says:

      As long as the gun comes out after the “get off my lawn” it’s legit. Don’t want to get shot, get off the fucking lawn should be the title of the law.

  25. avatar Kendahl says:

    If there is someone outside your house that you don’t want to deal with, don’t open the door. You have every right to ignore them.

    If you are frightened or even just uncomfortable, call the cops. Also, load up a defensive firearm and keep it handy. If there’s a mob, an AR15 with a few extra, standard capacity magazines would be a good choice.

    In every state, castle doctrine applies within the four walls of your home. Anyone who breaks in is presumed to pose a deadly threat. It’s wise, both legally and tactically, to wait for the bad guys to come to you.

    I don’t blame the husband for being concerned but he handled the situation badly. Given his previous job, I would expect him to have done better.

    Protesting outside people’s homes is intimidation not disagreeing about policy. The protesters are saying, “Accede to our demands or we’ll make your personal life hell.” The protesters outside the DA’s home wouldn’t like it if an opposition group did the same to them. Note that the pro-gun protesters in Virginia went to the state capital. They didn’t split up into groups and go to the homes of anti-gun politicians.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      And you wonder why you lose?

      I’m sure the Democrats would take a meeting with you to discuss their destruction of the United States on public property. They will make sure the cops are there too, so you can have a meeting with them as well.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      By the way, they tried to meet with her at a certain place and time. She didn’t want to, thus they went to her.

  26. avatar guy says:

    Wonder how many rounds that mag held?

    1. avatar P-Dog says:

      DA and government agencies are exempt, sadly. Rules for thee but not for me

  27. avatar Herbwuz says:

    Perhaps a member of BLM who is a teacher could file for a Red Flag restraining order. The husband was clearly a public danger waiving that gun around…

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Black men having guns is not allowed in California. Says Ronald Reagan, his Democrat buddies and the NRA. Well, that was back in the day. Now black people can have guns if they work for “the man” and destroy America.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “Now black people can have guns if they work for “the man” and destroy America.”

        So if black men get the ok from the white man democrats, in california, they can have guns? ok got it.

  28. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    You reap what you sow. The freedom of speech freaks all said it was a great thing that the Klu Klux Klan was allowed by the courts, to march in black neighborhoods while carrying guns. But they never support blacks carrying guns.
    Now a similar violent group is marching in YOUR neighborhood possibly very soon. I thought it was outrageous that BLM was marching at Fox news host Tucker Carlson and Sen McConnell homes late at night. Banging on drums. Yelling. I think the founders would have shot these people, yelling and screaming, who came to their homes in the middle of the night. And rightly so. But back then we were an armed and very polite society back then as well. No one would protest at a person’s home. That was a great way to get shot.

    The 1st amendment has been perverted. Just like the 2nd amendment has been turned upside down.

    btw
    I think you can protest in front of someone’s home. But not blocking the entrance to their house in the process. Which happened to a republican in Maryland several years ago. I don’t remember his name. But his 14 year old son was home alone. And the crowd refused to let the father into his own home. About 400 Antifa protesters were outside his house.
    The freedom of speech freaks said it was ok to block a military recruiting office. But Not
    ok to block an abortion clinic.

    When New Jersey gun rights groups protested at a CCW hypocrite gun grabber politicians home. It was in the afternoon. He turned on the front lawn sprinkler system. They didn’t bang on drums or use a bull horn in the middle of the night. Like they did at the McConnell and Carlson homes.
    The gun rights people didn’t wear masks. But Black Lives Matter and Antifa do wear masks. Just like the Klan does.

    The DA’s husband was wrong to point a gun at people. He violated the first rule of gun safety.

    1. avatar Victor says:

      What are “freedom of speech freaks”?
      Either private citizens have 1A or they don’t.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Did you completely read my comment? I will assume you did, and assume you support blocking the entrance to a person home. So they can’t get into their own house. I will also assume you support blocking the doors to an abortion clinic.
        The 1st amendment you know!?!?

        1. avatar Victor says:

          That has nothing to do with stating what or who “freedom of speech freaks” are.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Victor
          You are avoiding the issues I raised. So I will ask you directly.
          Do you have a 1st amendment right to show up at 3am banging on a drum and yelling at someone’s home?

          1. Do you have a 1st amendment right to block a person from getting into their own home?

          2. Do people have a 1st amendment right to block the entrance to an abortion clinic?

          3. People don’t have a 1st amendment right to block a military recruiting office correct?

          I believe its my 1st amendment right to refer to someone as a freedom of speech freak. Because They not only support this crap. But they also would never support the 1st amendment rights of people they don’t like.

  29. avatar P-Dog says:

    *POPCORN TIME*.

    I have no doubt the DA in LA would certainly prosecute Joe Q Public for doing the same action as her husband. So by all means, I certainly hope these protesters show up in front of all CA DA’s homes… and all dem politicians homes. The dems have been incubating and coddling these insane protesters for years about oppression and racism, what do they expect? Well they reap what they sow, and more of these kind of protests at politician homes would do very to sober them up that they should govern with a wee bit more moderation instead of progressive ideology.

    I also hope these protesters don’t forget to file a complaint against the DA’s husband using red flag laws. Yeah, most likely they’ll get a slap on the wrist, but inundate the system with these complaints, and maybe the tide will turn on some of these issues.

  30. avatar possum says:

    I bet he was smiling too. Another one of the exempt from law individuals.

  31. avatar Ark says:

    First rule of dealing with a lynch mob outside your house is “don’t open the door for them”.

    1. avatar chuckers says:

      If you do make sure you and your family members have 12 guage shotguns to get rid of the mob wanting to harm you.

  32. avatar TommyJay says:

    I sat on a jury in CA for a case that had firearm possession by a felon charges and brandishing charges. I can’t claim to remember everything perfectly, but my recollection is that if a person is outside their home (the structure) they can get you (or try to) on almost anything that they can construe to be brandishing.

    This guy, who we found guilty of felon firearm possession charges, had previously been convicted of brandishing. That previous case amounted to displaying the pistol in his waistband. He may have put his hand on the gun and tugged it upwards slightly.

    Get this: In the trial at hand, he had an extended windshield washer wand, which he held like a club. Albeit an 8 or 12 oz. club. And the people on the edge of his property were acting a slightly threatening manner. The idiot prosecutor had a brandishing charge for that behavior. We acquitted on that one. Ridiculous.

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    Geez talk about getting PAID by the troll word. I don’t like either “side”…

  34. avatar BDR says:

    Someone should Red Flag him.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      I am pretty sure that the handgun he was holding had a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, which I am not allowed here in Ca. It is good to be married to the Queen(and have special rights above other citizens)

  35. avatar Hannibal says:

    Calling the police would have been wiser but I don’t blame him. Maybe if you don’t want to be ‘traumatized’ by someone you shouldn’t be threatening them on their front porch.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    If a bunch if antifa thugs showed up on my doorstep at 5:30 am, I wouldn’t “traumatize” them with a handgun. I have shotguns for that.

  37. avatar George says:

    ANYBODY harassed by a large group on their own property would feel threatened. Kinda wish he’d just held his gun to the side, but I’d never vote to convict of anything.
    Burning cross – bad. Burning flag – bad . But if you perform such a stupid act on your own property, it’s bad but should not be illegal. Do it on public or other folks property , should warrant a stay in the crowbar motel.

  38. many of these BLM people are anti gun. which makes me wonder. if they succeed in having the people disarmed, it would leave the police and the gov’t the only ones to legally have guns. that is their solution? that is going to stop them from being unjustly shot by police? or do you think things like the DAs husband pointing a gun at them and getting away with it is just a glimpse of the future?

  39. avatar Buck says:

    If I had 50 naggers on my porch, I’d be bringing more than a pistol.

  40. avatar David J Gariepy says:

    Who shot that video? Looks to me like that crowd came prepared to make propaganda at David Lacey’s expense.

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      Bingo! As to being in fear for their lives how do we explain the continued demands to see his wife and the chanting.

      1. avatar joeSmith says:

        It’s BLM, they are used to having a black man point a gun at them. That’s why they are not truly sacred for their lives and continue to film the whole interaction.

  41. avatar rt66paul says:

    He should have turned on the sprinklers and then called the police. Getting a ticket for watering on the wrong day during a drought is a much cheaper fine and water is not an assault in Ca unless it is knock down strength.

  42. avatar rt66paul says:

    The timing here is also suspect. She is running for DA against a former DA of San Francisco(who had a record of not prosecuting crime and just letting the homeless criminals out after 5150 holds)

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Both candidates are bad.

      She was elected because she is black and was supposed to bring justice to the area. She is the first black woman to get the position. She did a 180 once elected. Hence the outrage by BLM and her running from meetings to discuss her performance.

      1. avatar c says:

        You mean she was elected to find every cop that was brought before her guilty. I thought she was elected to uphold the law. I know, every cop is guilty as far as you are concerned. God gave you a brain, use it.

      2. avatar chuckers says:

        Black means you can’t have morals or scrupples. Blacks can be as honorable as anybody else. Being honorable doesn’t descriminate.

  43. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Make no mistake, this is all about race…had this individual been white, he’d been in jail, all weapons confiscated, AND subject to a mental health eval…not too mention he would’ve been vilified in the press and everywhere online…

  44. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

    Get the fk off the mans porch…. it’s private property…. you don’t want a gun barrel in your face then stop harassing people at their homes!!!!!
    I wish he would’ve……..

  45. avatar Joseph Malone says:

    They are defending gun grabbering politicians right to shoot unarmed protesters… why would someone do that?

    a) They are controlled opposition
    b) Trolls with to much time on their hands
    c) Don’t have a clue
    d) All of the above

    My guess is d.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yeah, it is pretty weird.

      The DA had purposefully avoided public meetings to discuss her policies, she’s been dodging the citizens attempts to hold her accountable for months.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Two points. First Black Lives Matter are a minority of the voter’s by any standard.
        Two we have all seen enough video and news reports to understand Black Lives Matter are not interested in dialogues or conversation.
        There intent is to harangue,harass and intimate.

      2. avatar c says:

        Accountable for holding up the law? That’s her job. If it happened in Texas and he felt threatened he could have taken 15 of them out if his gun held that many rounds. People need to respect other peoples property. Besides, if he really felt threatened he could always go shoot George Soros for paying those people to threaten him.

    2. avatar chuckers says:

      How does he know they are unarmed. Besides didn’t black lives matter people pull a truck driver out of his rig and nearly beat him to death with bricks in Ferguson, which by the way Eric Holder and the FBI didn’t charge the police officer because after countless interviews they realized he acted correctly when he shot that person. I don’t think I could be a cop because I’m not sure I could have shot him but I can’t condemn the policeman that did if he was fighting for his life. I’m pretty sure that’s what Eric and the FBI heard over and over again because Obama really wanted to get that cop.

  46. avatar Zack says:

    Law be damned, somebody shows up on your doorstep like that you’re right to stick a gun in their face.

  47. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The number of people here will to violate safety rule #1 is amazing.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      edit
      The number of people here willing to violate safety rule #1 is amazing.
      auto correct!!!

  48. avatar mack says:

    I believe that this is yet another example of a double standard applied to an elite Dem office holder. However.. what right do Black Lies Matter blacktivists have to disturb the couple’s peace and to trespass on private property? Why was it unlawful for the man to defend himself, his wife and his property from angry thugs?

  49. avatar Top says:

    Funny how much a gun makes a difference when one feels threatened, seconds count, and cops are minutes away, eh Democrats? What’s good for you is good for everyone, not just you.

  50. avatar chuckers says:

    I remember the sign. But I also remember it being a bunch of hot air. The sign read, “Niger don’t let the sun set on your ass or it will be your last.” It was a scare tactic but when somebody black stayed overnight he left in the morning like anybody else. I guess it made some people feel brave to hang up that sign but in truth the sign and they were both jokes.

  51. avatar borg says:

    It sounds like a mob of black live matter protestors tried to terrorize and intimidate the LA District Attorney and her husband. The husband was apparently in fear of his life and safety and responded with armed self defense. The reason the husband was not charged was obviously because armed self defense against mobs is obviously lawful.

    1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

      ” The husband was apparently in fear of his life and safety and responded with armed self defense. ”

      As it has been pointed out ad nauseam, He was not ” in fear of his life and safety” or he would never had opened the door and stepped outside.
      Even if everything else you pointed out was true, The fact that he left his position of safety to confront “THE MOB” was an escalation of the conflict and destroys any claim of self defense.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        So your contention is that we must cower in our homes and never investigate actions in our own front yard. Kinda kills the concept of bearing arms.

        1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          No, Not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that his actions demonstrate that he had already made an assumption of what was outside his door was NOT an eminent threat to him or anyone inside the house or he would not have opened it. Anyone with even the simplest understanding of guns recognizes being on the business end of a gun barrel is a serious threat to life and limb and having one intentionally aimed at you is a credible death threat. What he did was an act of aggression, not defense. He willfully threatened to murder people he had already shown he did not feel posed an eminent threat just because he was unhappy that they were on his porch.

      2. avatar borg says:

        He had every right to order a mob off his property. He likely armed himself to insure that the mob was not able to react violently to a lawful order.

        1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          As I have noted before, I personally am armed myself when opening my door to anyone, HOWEVER, I do not draw and point my gun at anyone in a threatening manner, EVER.
          Being prepared for a threat and making a threat are two very different things. He would have gotten a pass from me if he came out with his gun in low ready, but he came out making a death treat by aiming at a person and telling them he intended to try to kill them.

  52. avatar Ryan says:

    Looks like a USP. So if nothing else, good choice in handguns.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email